|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Will 4K be the next 70mm?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Brad Miller
Administrator
Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99
|
posted 09-19-2010 02:48 PM
Let me say first that I LOOOOOOOOVE 70mm! My fondest memories of running film were at the GCC Northpark in Dallas where we ran lots and lots of it. Given a choice, I will still to this day take a 70mm print over a 35mm print (assuming they are both in equal condition).
With that being said I'm curious to a bit more details on Steve's numbers. Steve, are those numbers based upon resolution in film TODAY or back in the 80s?
Digital sound on 35mm is what killed 70mm, although I do agree carrying those damned things up the stairs wasn't much fun.
Still though I have to point out that since most 70mm prints were actually blowups, and of those we're talking mostly 80s, that is the basis of my post. With that being said, lets take a blowup from the 80s. Comparing that to a 35mm print of the same title (from the same printing), the 70mm blows it away. Its not even funny how much better the 70mm is. (If Joe was comparing it, he would probably use an analogy of a high bitrate blu-ray vs. a 3 generation "EP" VHS dub.)
BUT...compare that 70mm print from the 80s against a general release print made at a Technicolor lab (not the crappy Deluxe high speed prints from Canada) over the last 10 years and suddenly the 70mm print isn't so special due to technology advances in printing and filmstocks. I've seen regular release prints over the last decade that are superior visually to the 70mm blowups from the 80s. I can make that statement fairly because I have the capability of side-by-side comparisons today, whereas most of the people on the internet do that comparison based from their memory 20+ years ago, which is not fair nor accurate at all.
We also have to consider what happens when we take an 80s 70mm print and compare it to a recent 35mm re-print of the same title. Its sad but true, the 35mm reprint made within the last several years HAS A SHARPER IMAGE than the 70mm original print! This is no joke. Welcome to reality.
Then we get into sound. I am in the camp that 70mm mag sound was phenomenal and better than digital sound today...BUT the trick is finding a print that doesn't have mag damage! Once the tracks have wear or damage to them from an incompetent operator (or setup tech), the print is junk. All it takes is one pass.
From there we can compare sound mixes. I would imagine a mix such as Star Trek from 2009 or Inception as being even better on SR 70mm mag...but can anyone really find a mix from the 80s that was better than those recent examples of great sound mixing???
It is because of this that I am often surprised that people flock to 70mm revivals featuring blowups. Sure its worth the trip to go see something SHOT in large format like Baraka or Lawrence of Arabia (if you can stay awake), but when I see 70mm prints such as Ghostbusters being in a 70mm revival all I can do is laugh, because that is NOT 70mm in a good light.
Lets concentrate on the Ghostbusters example for a minute. The grain on that is ABSURD! There is simply no reason for it to look sooooooo shitty, but it does. I've ran many high speed 35mm prints from the 80s with the older technology lab work and filmstocks of the day that looked better than Ghostbusters in 70mm...and this is all assuming that the print being shown is in mint condition...which if we all wake up and come back to reality, is not. Most of the 70mm prints out there have wear and print damage. It doesn't take us back to those glory days. Back then 70mm was the best available. Today, we can and have achieved better results.
If only we could see what 70mm was capable of TODAY! Now THAT would be something to see!!!
Contrary to popular belief, 70mm is not just bigger. It has different tolerances on loop sizes, twisting (if platters), mag sound carries its own set of problems making sure everything is degaussed, etc...but gate tension is especially critical. For example, I've never come across a Century JJ machine that had optimal 70mm gate tension just by switching over from 35mm. It has ALWAYS been too much. (That isn't to say there aren't machines that magically are.) On single lens JJs a suitable sized allen wrench can be used to prevent the gate from fully closing at the stopping point needed, but on a turret JJ...well, that's just a pain in the ass to realign.
Most people also don't acknowledge that 70mm is not 70mm. There are different thicknesses of 70mm. One specific match that comes to mind was when we ran Brainstorm. That print was thinner (or thicker, I can't recall) than the other feature we were running as a double feature. Had we not made the proper adjustment to the trap before we ran the "thicker" print, we would have put unnecessary stress and possibly wear onto the print.
Enter 70mm dts...no more mag sound wear concerns, but also no more mag sound for the purists! At the same time we were treated to polyester film base, but if we look back at the example of Titanic in 70mm, the late John Pytlak was sent around the country to personally screen all of the prints 5 months into the run and the GCC Northpark in Dallas was his last stop. He said that most of the prints had bad wear on them that there were only 2 prints prior to ours he had seen which were acceptable (he noted those did have wear, dirt and scratches on them, but weren't too bad). He proclaimed that our print was absolutely flawless, which it was...and for the purists, that was running off of a platter.
Fast forward to TODAY. Does anyone here actually think 70mm has a chance in hell of being presented and the prints NOT be destroyed by incompetent operators???
Nope.
The "glory days" of 70mm are over, but I have to ask, when 4K comes out and a direct comparison is made given all of the technical improvements in filmstock and such...will it be lower, equal or better than regular 70mm blowups? How about films shot in 65mm such as Lawrence of Arabia (with the technology they had at the time vs. today)? A lot of that will depend on what care is taken in how current movies are shot and handled in post production. Time will tell.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 16 pages: 1 2 3 4 ... 14 15 16
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic